Is Arma3 still the "Flagship"

[Mattressi]

Even if DayZ were to become the financial flagship of BIS, I can't see them developing it as the flagship. That is, I don't see them making their next generation engines based on the needs of a zombie survival game (though, perhaps they'll add some features for it, like melee weapons). As a military sim engine, it is very flexible; able to be a civilian helicopter simulator, for example. An engine built for a zombie game likely would make it inflexible. You can make a zombie mod out of a military-based engine, but it'd be very time-consuming to make a milsim or flight sim out of a zombie engine.

I do hope that DayZ doesn't change their focus away from Arma. The good majority of people that I know who bought Arma CO for DayZ, said that they got bored of DayZ relatively quickly and thought they'd try Arma - only to discover that they love it. Maybe it isn't representative of everyone who bought Arma CO for DayZ, but I still think it would be a mistake to neglect Arma. Arma can be so many things, while a zombie game cannot easily.

[Phantom Six]

I rather have ARMA as the flagship than DayZ. Its easier to mod and make more out of a simulator than a zombie game. Just as you have said Mattressi, there's so much more you can make out of ARMA. It may be a military sim engine and a more tactical game, but because there's commands in the editor that make it possible for me, if I felt like it, I can make some kind of run and gun crazy rambo missions. It's so flexible. Now trying to make a tactical mil-sim shooter from a zombie game? That's way harder and much more time consuming to do. I hope all goes well for ARMA 3, so far from the videos I've seen, it looks like a jewel, I'd like to see the open Alpha for myself and hope that ARMA 3 has a bright future ahead for it. Of course the mainstream favors DayZ, but the long time fans, true fans, first fans, and niche tactical shooter fans that BIS created ARMA for the first place will always remember ARMA.

[Chortles]

Multiplayer stuff, that is (was) his job at BIS.

Actually, according to the April animations interview, he also recorded about a third of the infantry animation (mo-cap) for ARMA 3, while Smookie did the rest. Therefore, you can "blame" (read: credit) him with Last Stand and Final Stand

(Man, remembering a forums member's sheer Internet RAGE at the supine position was so hysterical in light of the above pictures, and so "everything that is wrong with the ARMA community".)

From what I've heard, the ONLY "loss" to ARMA 3's dev manpower was Rocket, and that happened a while back (when the "Rocket told to work on DayZ full time" rumors hit the Internet); I've heard that he's hanging on to the people that he'd already been working on the mod with, instead of pulling more people off of ARMA 3 development team(s). The allocation of other resources is unknown to the publicly, but whoever was saying this basically said that in terms of allocating people, it was NOT a zero-sum equation -- DayZ's gain was NOT ARMA 3's loss. Take heart in that at least!

[maturin]

The 3D editor IMO is a very very important feature. It can mean the difference between mediocre to good user generated scenarios with rough similarities to the ones included in ARMA, versus a plethora of excellent creativity in how ARMA is and also isn't meant to be played (both are good).

Uh, why the hell?

The only thing a 3D editor is necessary for is stacking crates to build elaborate pillow forts. Anyone who says otherwise just can't read maps.

Note that I say 'necessary' for. 3D can speed up object placement immensely, cutting down on the time spent previewing, minutely adjusting, then previewing again ad nauseum. But this can be alleviated by an accelerated preview method, launching the map in seconds with only the designated objects rendered. Also, BIS could create a 3D placement tool for making prefabbed defenses.

All in all, that would be a better use of resources (along with improving the usability of the very stable and mature 2D editor). Because you just know that any 3D editor released by BI would just unleash a cascade of headaches, while seriously detracting attention from the core game (it is in effect a whole separate program. look how long it took Bethesda to turn out their piece of crap mod tools). Stability issues, glitches, performance issues from play transposed to the editing process, you name it.

And I mean really, what is so hard about dropping down units and waypoints and triggers in 2D? Nothing. That's most of mission making, after all.

[Phantom Six]

Well, the 3D editor benefits would be as you stated maturin. Waypoints, triggers, and markers to be are better in the 2D editor. As for precise and quick unit placements, 3D editor would be better for interior placements or stacking a bunch of crates together to create a fort. There is also another way to place units in interiors by finding the position you are standing but it is more a hassle than a quick 3D. Of course the 3D editor isn't the most necessary thing, but it is nice to have for convenience. As for stacking up blocks or making large mazes, the current 3D editor in ARMA 2 can do the job pretty well by doing all of the empty objects first then converting it to 2D and doing the rest there.

A 3D placement tool for placing prefabbed items would be excellent.

[maturin]

Like with a building-only 3D editor that would bring up the model in a blank window. You click a location on the 3D preview and your unit appears at the proper place in the 2D editor.

[CarlosTex]

Yeah, just pretend I'm not here at all.

Oh noes! SQS is BACK!!!

[Celery]

Oh noes! SQS is BACK!!!

With unprecedented vengeance.

[DMarkwick]

With unprecedented vengeance.

And furious anger?

http://www.omega-level.net/wp-conten...tion-Remix.png (164 kB)

[Jezuro]

This disabled 3D editor discussion is getting out of hand. Even if we don't manage to make any further changes in it, we see no reason not to have it in the game.

Remember: no features removed!